Skip to main content

About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN2 46
LANGUAGE
English 46
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46
applicable in pakistan. he had close relationships rhetorically with mullah omar and mullah omar reporter intervened on his behalf, again in 2006 to keep them in a leadership position in south waziristan. so does look like a pretty close operational relationship at least as far as it goes. for less than going to say just going forward is on the future of afghanistan, i could not agree more with what anand was thing about the money issue in afghanistan. i wrote a paper published here by new america called russian roulette, and i forget the subtitle, that runs through and as a comparison of the last days of the russian occupation in afghanistan in the late '80s with where we are today. frankly, i don't think from a sustainability of the afghan government standpoint we have done much better. and that's pretty depressing but i think that's the case. and we may have been worse. i think that a lot of ways you can make a strong argument that he was a more dynamic and creatively within hybrid car site. so the last thing though is where do we go going forward. and i think especially in the process
turkey and pakistan. so that constitutes the click of the taliban leadership in formally. second is the military side. people who may not be on the ground in afghanistan leading fighters but directing the insurgency on the day-to-day level. they either distressed u.s. intentions lower point* through the 2002 through 2004 period and many are people that did try to cut the deals and were rebuffed so know are on the military side. said talking to them as well there is a sense that they can reconstitute the '90s taliban. so if they hold on a little bit longer they can do that. but it is to understand the different position those with ordinary afghans with a focus on the troop number and talking whether there is 6,000 or 3,000 troops in afghanistan. that is important in the village where it is thought they would say they don't want any troops but in my discussion they don't think about it which is what we face today is a question of state formation. and in 2004. what i mean by that is and attempting to build the afghan state what happened was on the one hand they put money into kabul
afghanistan, and western pakistan. to get at them itself when the united states was puzzling over its resurgence in afghanistan as a military challenge that had been neglected in the years after the 2001 arab emirates that it presented itself as a grave dilemma to the obamacare administration so we try to provide the regularity about this phenomenon recognizing the cliche image of the of one i aid malaya and his band of fanatics was inaccurate and falsified the problem. said not to prosecute a particular view of the taliban but look at its diversity and aspects of the character fetter not part of american debate to. i am really proud of this book and peter whose leadership from new america has been a joy in my office to support him and watch him. the last thing i want to talk -- that i want to say is with the research is part of a much broader body of work that we engaged in it and hope your subscribers and readers as you are with foreign policy with conferences and publications, anyway we are pleased to have this occasion and have a discussion about the subjects that are in the book
are important for the role of pakistan and many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for summer between six and ten minute roughly speaking and then we will open up to questions or dialogue with respect to the audience. we will start with jim, if you are ready, give you the floor. >> my response ability for afghanistan goes back to 2001 and is fair to say the time was present for creation of the current regime and i start by looking back and try to spot the things we did wrong at the time and it strikes me there were three fundamental errors two of which i perceive that the time and tried to do something about and one of which i failed to proceed entirely and did nothing about. one was the decision not to deploy any american or international peacekeepers in the country. we have a country with no police force and no army and we decided security would be an afghan responsibility after the fall of the taliban. i think that was a major mistake. the second was to allow the coalition we successfully built for the war and the peace conference disintegrate.
afghanistan and pakistan. this is about an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon, everybody, and welcome. i'm steve coll, i'm the president of the new america foundation, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to this event briefly. and to introduce our subject which from our perspective involves the launch of a book that somebody will hold up for the audience since i don't have a copy. talibanistan. laugh -- [laughter] and i just wanted to say a few words about where this book came from and why the subject matter that you'll hear discussed today struck us as or worthy of what became really a couple of years of endeavor at new america led by peter bergen who will be your moderator through most of the program today. peter and katherine teedman, who unfortunately is not with us today, co-edited this book. it's a collection of scholarly and journalistic articles about the taliban and it environment in southern afghanistan and western pakistan. and it was born as an attempt at new america by a diverse group of researchers to try to get at some of the diversity of the tal
to the to union, the former ambassador and the former secretary of pakistan to be hosted by the atlantic council here in washington, this is about 90 minutes. >> we are delighted to have you all. we are delighted to have our distinguished guests. it's pretty rare i think that you get three extraordinary ambassadors sitting next to one another each of whom has tremendous familiarity with the subject. on the council itself has been working on these issues for quite a number of years. this is actually the fourth anniversary of the salvation center. some of you may remember a few years ago the council did a very substantial report with respect to afghanistan. the then head of the council and the national security adviser was involved with some of the people in the audience involved frigate and we followed up on some of that work continuously over the last several years could get this is the latest installment if you will. i think that we all know that we are at an inflection point with respect to afghanistan to read a lot of the important decisions coming. president karzai is here to meet with presi
personally intervened to resolve a diplomatic crises and difficult places from pakistan and afghanistan to egypt and sudan. and i really look forward to working with you on some of the challenging issues as it faces the country in the world but we start back to something and number of senators have referred to in your opening statement which you said. i just want to say i've been deeply encouraged by your response to senator shaheen's comments and senator rubio. we are sadly foreign commercial service woefully underrepresented and wherever opportunity to advocate for american business and american values and as you know i chaired to the hearings on this. we are about to come out with a report from the subcommittee and i would be interested as the first of my several questions and how you see has successfully competing with china which has a rapidly growing footprint across africa in both economic opportunities and in our differing values agenda and what that makes doing for and how you would address that as secretary e and senator coons were a terrific team with respect to africa and i
india and pakistan have a fear that what will have been, still inside pakistan, where they will go because pakistan is also among other nations. but reality can you give to those working in afghanistan? >> i think what we have to look at then is we have to rest comfortable with that list then, chicago, tokyo come in the international community has a huge commitment and frankly when we look at $16 billion of international commitment, it can, i don't think afghanistan is going to be standing alone. we'd like them to stand up, but again we need to be there. the >> can you review the bidding on what his profile at the insurgency today, roughly how many taliban either? how many al qaeda -- what are your best estimates and the breakdown between the hard-core click >> that it's a very difficult question. part of it deals with the nature of how things in the inning out of afghanistan for certain. i've seen numbers quite honestly as low as 20,000 insurgents and with the afghan partners around 30. the exact percentage of what's hard-core and what's not is very hard to break apart. i think th
against the united states in a country like pakistan and each at, which are large recipients of the public majority that is military, but there is a very powerful sentiment that this evil don't like us. they take our money and burn our flag. luscious cut them off. obviously there's been resolutions and so forth. talk about how you respond to you think the country how to respond to that very powerful sentiment. >> well, the common thread here is the presence of al qaeda and its affiliates in the threat that poses to the world from the standpoint of stability and peaceful transition of government. we are reminded that almost every day and it's a crested that sweeps across the middle of the world, starting in indignation at coming across northern africa and now moving down to the sub-saharan parts of africa. this is a threat that has enormous implications. we've seen ignoring the threat as we did in afghanistan pre-9/11 leads to dire consequences potentially for americans. it is true the american public is more weary, but nevertheless we are reminded every day that works and journalists -- >>
was adviser to four presidents, president obama asked them to lead his afghanistan-pakistan paula's review in early 2009, and do that for a couple of months before apple first returning to brookings. bruce has written two books in the time has been a, a third is about to come out and i will mention that in the second of the first two were about al qaeda and then about the is pakistan relationship. so the search for al qaeda, the deadly embrace, his new book coming out next month is avoiding armageddon. it's a story by the u.s.-india pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half-century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point, spent 34 years in u.s. army, retiring as a four-star general the summer 2010. he has been command in afghanistan. use the correct of the joint staff but perhaps the military circles most of all as i mentioned this five year period at joint special operations command makes a memorable and historic. general casey at his retirement ceremony in 2010 said of general stand, the thrill is stand has done more to carry the fight of al q
to pay this transit fee as we go over pakistan, and i have an exception for afghanistan because that's a war zone, and then israel i have an exception for, under my proposal, because of the heightened risk of conflict. should be weakened financially because we cut them off, or if cutting them off would appear to be a move to distance ourself and might embolden israel's foes, and my amendment would fully fund the proposal of chairman hall rogers. >> mr. burgess. >> thank you for the recognition, i want to thank all of you for your work on the eliminating offset amendments. there was a 1% across the board offset that turned out to be $9 billion when, in 2005-2006, and there is a crs report delineates that. i think there's precedence for looking at this. one question i would have for you is, how will this funding be affected by the sequester? is there already an across the board cut that comes through the sequester and is your cut in addition to the sequester or is this funding carved out and protected? >> my understanding, doctor, is that both the underlying bill and my amendment would
acknowledged we have a drone program but the argument ends like somalia and yemen and pakistan has been the consents of the government to hunt down bad guys and kill them to benefit us and them as well. i don't know that that is the legal rationale for those strikes. >> there is a distinction. i think the government can make a strong argument based on the commander in chief's power under the constitution that there's a right to protect action to protect the united states. is a slippery slope when you see how far it goes and that is independent of authorization of the use of military force. authorization, passage by congress of something of a rising it makes the power structure, justice jackson said when you have congress and the president to get rid is hard to do it but they can argue on the constitution. one of the differences is the right to the teen people is always something that has been covered aside from killing them, the right to detain people has always been something in the traditional branch covered by a judicial review in the law. you may have more right to use force than yo
, that i'd never heard of, at the bottom of three steep mountains, 14 miles from the pakistan border, 53 u.s. troops facing an onslaught of up to 400 taliban. a horrific day. i held my son and heard about how eight other sons were taken from us that day, and i just wanted to know more. and i couldn't get it out of my head. the coverage was all along the lines of, why would anybody but an outpost at the bottom of three steep mountains 14 miles from the pakistan border. nobody ever answered the question, and when the military investigated it, they just said, yeah, there was no strategic purpose for that 0 to be there, sorry, and moved on. and there was -- i was haunted by it. i wanted to know more, solve this mystery. why would anybody put a camp there? and it became a mystery i had to solve. and then the more i found out about the outpost and the more i found out about the attack on the outpost, i heard just some amazing feats of heroism, all agent of the men who died, died either trying to engage the enemy or trying to save one of their fellow soldiers. every single one of the eight who we
like pakistan, indonesia, and so forth, but, also through christians. she's met who have a direct experience of this. this story is also powerfully documented. one further point i want to, general point i want to make about the book, is to raise a general question to whom is this book addressed? who might benefit from it? well, many people. i hope, i think it's a very suitable gift for the holidays. [laughter] people will go out and buy it. it's not only a very informative and moving book, but it's a very good read because lela's a very good writer. it would say there's several appropriate audiences. first, writing as a christian american is natural that one of her audiences with other christian americans, or at least other non-jewish americans. since it's, you know, conceiving such an audience, that describes of what jewish life is like in israel, and let me say about this, she is remarkably well-informed, a testament to her own curiosity and the hospitality she found among israelis. i should say that perhaps a number of aspects of israeli life and specifically jewish experiences
. iraq, afghanistan and pakistan so every country in the world we are under the kind of contracting world that i think do interfere with our capacity to get the best deal, particularly when it comes to security that we should in these countries where the threats unfortunately are going to always be with us. >> should we look to extend that to the drc come to somalia? >> there was an article i think in one of the newspapers today that went into some detail. basically years has started. federal law required the state department to select the cheapest rather than the best contractor to provide local card services at its embassies abroad and there's that old saying you get what you pay for and this lowest price provision started off in 1990, but it has just stayed with us and i would respectfully request that this committee would take a hard look at it. you can't do a total lifting of it for everybody at least look at the highest post where obviously we did it for iraq and afghanistan and pakistan and the countries that you are naming our countries that i think would fall into that category.
for the iranians of the north koreans are the pakistans or others to design. so what would happen if one of these things as part of in downtown manhattan? well, the map shows with certain assumptions about when speed and other factors with the devastation would be. of course, it is worse around ground zero and getting a little bit better as you go farther out but the estimate in this scientific journal is that this relatively small nuclear device would injured about one-half million people and killed over 600,000 people just from being set off in lower manhattan. of course, you would see similar devastation if one were to be set off your in washington. no, i don't mean to alarm anybody here, but i think we need to think about these kinds of dangers because they are not going away. as the iranian nuclear program accelerates, as pakistan destabilizes, these are very real possibilities that we have to think very hard about. rome was brought down by barbarians. we have to be very careful that we ourselves are not brought down by barbarians. i think the first defense is to understand the natu
to the house on monday, is that the risks are changing but we still face the biggest risk from the afghanistan-pakistan area, but the proportion of the risks we face from the very has declined so we are able to use resources as we draw down in afghanistan to cope with the other risks that we face. but the overall point is absolutely that yes, we are going to have a smaller regular army, although the extra reserves will be at the overall level of our army hardly changes the size, but it would be better equipped, more capable, more mobile, more capable of dealing with the modern threats that we face. >> graham stuart. >> tournament. can i congratulate the prime minister on the speech on europe this morning, and -- mr. speaker, this premise has a history of going to bat for britain and the party opposite has a history of going in and surrendering. but can ask the prime minister is the difference between that site and decide. that side wants to deny them. >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point. frankly, the british public have seen treaty after treaty introduced to this house passing p
have found shelter and protection in either pakistan or iran, and on the case, in the case of pakistan we have supported the international efforts to help those refugees that are finding asylum in pakistan. most of those refugees are not seeking resettlement. they have looked over the last few years to see if there are pockets of refugees, especially, both in pakistan and iran that are in need of resettlement. we started to resettle some refugees from both countries. we have a very small program out of iran. we are obviously not operating inside iran but are taking those people to either romania or slovakia where we can process vulnerable women and families. so we don't, i think, projected large increase in the reseller program for afghanistan, but we continue to help and i think the neighboring countries that are providing asylum. where individuals might need protection as opposed to large waves of refugees. >> thank you. >> mr. bartlett, you identified that you have a two-step process. first come you want to identify those who are eligible for this consideration, and then assure that
i was very happy. i disrespect for in the wake and a university that pakistan's but the gist of it in situ like georgetown or the military environment. i can't think of one instance where there was ever a censorship. in fact, people don't realize this, that the naval academy to believe it's true, the best officers want their midshipmen to make an unlawful order. they want them to protest the unlawful order or the unethical and i'm reasonable behavior in the senior command. they want this to be the messenger that takes it right up, but they want them to know it could cost you a court-martial. it shouldn't come lately. shouldn't fret about whether -- could you keep tupperware in your locker or square in the corners are yelling this or that 36 bytes, six choose instead of some great burning campaign, the trivia required to learn and recite in these academies. if you got an unlawful order or a lawful order, but somehow called into question your dignity or dignity of politics. you are responsible for bringing that up and partly the reason i was there that is because that was a sma
arrested while in pakistan. there were others arrested in dubai and somalia. we have to have this special forum about the battlefield conditions is a great part of this second rate process that is more about less will go what we are bringing to court. another part of the issue is the senate select committee who has completed their report. and also john mccain and dianne feinstein concluded that torture does not work. and it's a stain on our reputation. i think that it's important that this information is declassified , especially after the premiere of the movie "zero dark thirty." it will do for torture what the movie "jaws" did for sharks. you know, on the 25th of january, john kerry revealed the name of someone who was allegedly involved. talking about torture versus committing torture -- sometimes it seems to make you a hero. they are heroes in the eyes of those who believe that torture works. we are often sending someone to prison and no one has gone to prison for their actions. i mentioned the program where it is a mistake to talk about it and we have a military program that is gover
because of the sort of backlash against the united states and u.s. installations and country like pakistan and egypt which are large recipient of the united. there's a powerful sentiment that the people don't us. they take the money and burn the flag. let cut them off. there's resolutions and stuff introduces. talk about how you respond or how you think the country ought to respond to the powerful sentiment. >> well, i think the common threat here is the presence of al qaeda and the affiliate. and the threat it poses to the world. from the standpoint of stability. and peaceful transition of governments. we're reminded of that almost every day. and -- sweeps across the middle of the world starting in indonesia and coming across northern africa and moving down to the sub sahara part of africa. this is a threat that has enormous implications. we have seen that ignoring the threat as we did in afghanistan pre 9/11. t true that the american public is more wary but never the less, we're reminding every day on cnn n and other networks and journalists from "the washington post . >> talk more i wan
like pakistan and yemen, somalia to some extent and other states. i don't think we have great strategies of waging political warfare. that's what we need to do, a gap that needs to be filled, and i think we can draw lessons from the days of the cold war as to how too that. the need to do that, i think, was brought home to me by a meeting i had a few years ago, i think in 2008 in baghdad with a fellow named -- a brave iraqi parliamentarian, brave or suicidal or a combination of the two, who dared to visit israel and thought iraq should normalize relations with israel for which sentiments he faced attempts to get him imprisoned, which he beat, and won rulings in his favor in an iraqi court, but he didn't stop the extremists who in 2005 attacked him and his sops and killed his two sons in retaliation for visiting israel. testifies not discouraged, ran for parliament, won a seat in 2005, but i remember meeting with him in his living room in baghdad in 2008 rueing the fact he had little money on which to run for re-election or to fund a slate of like-minded candidates whereas all t
is right now we are largely favoring the kill and capture peace especially in places like pakistan and yemen, somalia to some extent and some other states. i don't think we really have great strategies of waging political warfare, and that i think is what we really need to do. that is a cat that needs to be filled and i think we can be -- the gap that needs to be filled, and we can draw lessons of the cold war as how to do that. and the need to do that i think was really brought home to me by a meeting i had a few years ago, i think in 2008 in baghdad, with a fellow who was a very grave a rocky holloman thing, either brave or suicidal, maybe some combination of the two, who dared to visit israel on a couple of different occasions and thought iraq had actually normalize relations with israel, for which sentiments he faced attempts to get him in prison, which he successfully beat, and in an iraqi court, he did not however manage to stop extremists who, in 2005, attacked him and his sons and killed his two sons in retaliation for his country and visiting israel. but he was not discour
you, we really should not send troops and to afghanistan in the first place. >> pakistan. patraeus and the crystal and kayten clinton. he had a tough group around him. are we his undoing. one of the things we criticize him for, the advisers the brought in. they called his economic advisers are constellation of reubenites, and they work. timothy geithner and our receivers. i mean, these are real wall street people he brought in. some of those policies were not surprising. and his foreign-policy team has been up to his eyeballs in most of the bad things of this country has done for decades. >> the promise in his campaign in 2008 that he would pull troops out of a rock and put more emphasis on afghanistan. so fallen through and his promise. >> most of us supported him strongly and still do work not taken seriously enough and he said that. and then everything has been a big mistake. disappointed the number of fronts. is going to be its transparency president and that he was going to cut back on all the bush secrecy. in most ways he has not followed through. between 1917 and the fbi's a
; thailand, pakistan and turkey. although her husband met with government leaders, she again had her own schedule of events. in the end, she wrote, it left us dizzy but happy that in such a short time so much could be accomplished. in november of 1958, the couple traveled to london where pat wowed much of the british press with her natty wardrobe and unspoiled manner. the following year they went to the soviet union and poland. in moscow, dick confronted nikita khrushchev in an exhibition of american consumer goods. pat once again had her own agenda of visiting orphanages and hospitals. he might have gotten more headlines, but pat's interaction with soviet women and children also made a lasting impression. she actually, there were all kinds of pictures offer happening out candy and bubble gum to the soviet children that made it into "life" magazine. perhaps more importantly, her pointed questions to nikita khrushchev about his wife's absence from the festivities led to mrs. khrushchev as well as the wives of other soviet officials suddenly appearing at the events during the rest of the v
is we favor the kill and capture peace especially in pakistan and yemen and somalia and other states. i don't think we have great strategies to wage political warfare and that is a gap that needs to be built and i think we can be -- we can draw lessons from the days of of the cold war as to how to do that. and the need to do that was brought home to me by a meeting i had a few years ago. i think it was in 2008 in baghdad with a fellow named i love lucy who was a very brave iraqi parliamentarian, either brave for suicidal and maybe some combination of the two, who dared to visit on a couple of occasions and thought iraq should normalize elections with israel for which sentiments face attempts to give him presents in an iraqi court. he did not however manage to stop the extremists who have tracked his sons and killed his two sons for his retaliation for visiting israel. he ran for parliament in one of seidin 2005 but i remember meeting with him in his living room in baghdad in 2000 where he was showing the fact that he had little money to run for re-election and little money with like-min
was in pakistan a couple weeks ago, and we heard for ourselves there was political impact and drones and the way they were exploited, very visibly in the uprunning up to the election, and you know the next 30 american women to the drone impact sites and used a powerful attack on american engagement. i wanted to know if you could give reaction to the argument that they are worried that the missile technology control regime is damming the market for drones, and they are looking for some kind of relaxation so, i mean, can you tell us what -- i know what the policy is in relation to drone activity and pakistan, but on the wider use of drones and the extent to which you feel that the system we have is adequate to control, particularly those who supply components. >> well, the controls on the empty fee are, the controls of the exports of uavs are strong, and those capable of traveling beyond the range of only 300 kilometers and carrying a payload above 500 kilograms are subject, as i'm sure you know, to a strong presumption of denial where an advocate of strong control and partners feel that we've ens
control technology. >> thank you. secretary, akaka international development committee was in pakistan a couple weeks ago and we heard for ourselves the political impact of the drones and the weightier being exploited women not to the election on some of the sites so i wonder if you could give some reaction to the argument that is being put forward by some of the suppliers that they are worried when the control regime is damaging the market and i knew what the policy was in relation to the german activity to the extent you feel the system we have is adequate to control the supply components. >> dhaka controls are on the export can't those capable of traveling in the payload with 500 kilograms are subject to the strong presumption of denial. we are an advocate of strong controls and partners ensure that these remain appropriately controlled. given that there are more countries interested effective and appropriate controls will remain very important and that isn't to say the technology changes but a woman can beat commander important. >> what about the development of leasing or renting o
to pakistan, libya and egypt. it only got ten votes, but now that's spread all around the far right, uh-oh, they should have voted to cut off that aid. and so we are seeing that emerge in our party and in our or nation, and a lot of people say why should we be spending money on these foreign adventures and foreign assistance when we have so much trouble at home? and that debate will rage now between now and the next elections and, particularly, the next presidential elections. >> minister mackay, your nation has been such a loyal ally to the united states, following us into afghanistan. your country was involved to a lesser extent, certainly, in iraq. but considering the outcome in these two places, how would you say your nation's point of view has changed, if it has, on the responsibilities of we democracies to take actions like that? >> well, i'll come directly to that, but i want to play off something that senator mccain said. that in considering interventions, military contributions, foreign aid, there's no question that the very stormy economic situation that we've all come through
once coalition forces leave in 2014. diplomats in afghanistan, pakistan and the united states will participate. you can watch the event live beginning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> people who describe themselves as libertarians, dependent which we look at you might begin between 10 and 15%. if you ask questions like if you give people a battery of questions about different ideological things do you believe in x., do you believe and why, and you can't and you track of two different ideologies, and in a witch boy you're looking at you get up to maybe 30% of americans that's calling themselves a libertarian. if you ask the following questions, are you economically conservative but socially liberal, you get over half of americans call themselves like saying that's what they are. that said, just because people say these things it doesn't necessarily mean they really believe them. if you ask most americans do you want smaller government, they said yes, but if you ask the one government to spend much -- less money, they say yes. if you ask them to cut any particular item, they do
discusses bill and her commitment to pakistan, senator feinstein described herself as a mayor on a mission. senator feinstein, you had an array of current mayors on a mission spinning with you, ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure this bill becomes a law. let's move forward. thank you. [applause] good afternoon, everyone. thank you very much, senator feinstein. thank you to the colleagues in the senate and the members that are here today in support of this legislation. i'm speaking today on behalf of the major city chiefs cities chiefs association. we are an organization made up of the 63 largest cities in the united states and i have the honor of serving as president of the organization on my way down here, i was on the train i received a call from the executive director of the international association of chiefs of police, which is the largest of all the police organization. unfortunately they could not be here today, but they wanted me to pass on to you their support in this legislation. members and executives, my good friends and chair of the national prevention for gun viole
envoy to afghanistan, sudan and pakistan at crucial moments. senator kerry advocated for democratic elections in the philippines. he was part of the delegation that uncovered the fraud that ultimately led to the removal of president ferdinand marcos. he was a strong proponent of u.s. action to end ethnic cleansing in kosovo and to impose sanctions on burma tied to human rights abuses. senator kerry has been a leader in promoting economic development and recovery in haiti, fighting global hiv-aids, supporting democracy and human dignity, and the advancement of human empowerment throughout the world. in his early days in the senate, senator kerry and i -- in fact, we were elected together in 1984, we came to the senate together, but right after that, shortly after that, senator kerry and i went on a fact-finding mission to nicaragua and unearthed information regarding the activities of the contra guerrillas which he presented to the committee on foreign relations. based in part on his ground-breaking findings, the committee launched an investigation into the funding of the contra guer
the last years we have become accustomed to operating in dangerous places in pakistan, and iraq and afghanistan and yemen and elsewhere. and we do, as by necessity, rely on security officials to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe. and as i said in my opening statement, i have a lot of confidence in them because most of the time they get it right. but i was also engaged, and i think this is what deputy secretary burns was referring to, in issues related to the superior -- deteriorating thread and fiber, particularly in libya, there were other places across the region. we were also watching, to try to see what we could do to support the libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country, to deal with the many militias. we have many programs and actions that we were working on. i had a number of conversations with leading libyan officials. i went to libya in october 2011. in fact, shortly before the attack on benghazi we approved a libya for substantial funding from a joint state ud account for border security and wmd efforts.
sandy. what it does is cut into foreign aid with the exception of israel, afghanistan or pakistan and shift those moneys being spent on foreign aid to instead be spent on american aid to the victims of hurricane sandy so it is paid for, it is a substantive pay for the amounts are unknown because it is the key to how much money is spent or has already been spent on foreign aid, and that can fluctuate depending on when this legislation should pass. the reason i am submitting the pay for is because the precarious condition the united states government sees itself to the financially we're on a path to nowhere. financially, we are looking at instead of a fiscal clough, a fourth consecutive deficit we have $16 trillion in total debt to increase that beyond $16 trillion to put that into perspective the amount of damages done to the country on an annual basis now serving the data is excess of $20 billion to put it in perspective that $220 billion that we're spending for servicing the past is three times all of those sought by entertains and the victims. best case scenario give them everyt
by hurricane sandy but to it cuts into foreign aid with the exception of israel afghanistan or pakistan to shift those moneys to instead be spent on american aid it is a substantive because the amount is of unknown for what has been spent on foreign-aid the reason i submit the pay for is of the precarious position the government sees itself. we're on a path to know where financially. then said of the fiscal cliff we have a debt mountain, a $16 trillion of total debt and ane
got the phone call that said pakistan got a hold of the weapon? it was plausible and i said
. the argument in somalia and yemen and pakistan has been that the consent of the government to hunt down reggae in them as well. homolog foyer is the legal rationale for those strikes. >> i think the government can make a strong argument based on the commander-in-chief power into the constitution that he is right to take action to protect the united states. it's a slippery slope in the co how far it goes. that is independent of the authorization for the use of military force. the passage by congress makes his powers stronger. as justice jackson says the new congress and the president together is hard to do it. one of the differences is the right to detain people is always some thing that has been covered. the right to detain people is always been something when the judicial branch in covered by judicial review and the law. so you may have more right to use force than you do to detain people, the government. >> with the au at math for the constitutional authority, the constitution nor the transfix, the constitution aminorex of congress have been passed or irrelevant. >> i just say if i could get
earlier last year governor perry was asked if you got the phone call and told that terrorist in pakistan had gotten ahold of one of the nuclear weapons? i'm not criticizing him for not knowing how to answer the question. the fact that the question was a plausible one i think says, and i don't know how answer it. my first comment would be i want to know more who has it and what we know. trying to prevent that scenario from happening or be able to deal with it if it happens is important and the cost of the country are almost -- if they were able to set it off. it's not -- we always said possibility of a war with the soviet union was a slow probability. but a serious event to plan for. there are other things like that top. so i come back to my point. the american leadership, which includes diplomacy, very definitely is important for maintaining the relatively peaceful, it's all relative. historically relatively peaceful situation we have in critical part of the world and we would be sorry to lose it. once you lost it it takes huge cost and blood and treasure to get back. i'd say the problem
from the afghanistan-pakistan area but the proportion of the risks we face from that area have declined. so we are able to use resources as we draw down in afghanistan to cope with the other risk we face. the overall point is absolutely that yes we are going to have a smaller regular army although the extra reserve will meet the overall level of our army changes but they will be better equipped for capable more mobile for capable of dealing with the modern threats that we face. >> thank you mr. speaker. i congratulate the prime minister on his speech this morning. mr. speaker this prime minister has a history of going into battle while the party opposite has a reputation of going in and surrendering. there's a big difference between that site in this one. this i trust the people and the outside -- >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point. frankly the british public has seen treaty after treaty introduced to this house from westminster to brussels. they have seen a huge change in the european union over the last 30 years and they see a big change taking place because o
.s. installations in countries like pakistan and egypt which are heavy, large recipients of assistance from the united states. a large majority of that is military. but there is a point in this country that those people don't like us, they take our money and then they burn our flag, and let's just cut them off. obviously, there have been resolutions introduced, so forth. talk about how you think the country ought to respond to that very powerful sentiment. >> well, i think the common thread here is the presence of al-qaeda and its affiliates and the threat that poses to the world. from the standpoint of stability at peaceful transition of governments. and we're reminded of that almost every day. and it's this crescent that sweeps across the middle of the world starting in indonesia and coming all the way across now northern africa and now moving down into the sub sahara parts of africa. this is a threat that has enormous implications. we've seen that ignoring that threat as we did in afghanistan pre-9/11 leads to some dire consequences potentially for americans. it is true the american publ
in presence. i have always said afghanistan is not just about afghanistan. it is also about pakistan. the picture being painted here is a significantly less presence of u.s. involvement in that region with all the consequences that can come from that. >> we are going to try to bring it around here. i should have said when you do enter your question, ask for the microphone and stand and identify yourself and keep your question short. if we have time we will get back to you. >> please identify yourself. >> one of the things -- jack james from the american institute of german studies. i want to ask about europe and whether or not you think there's enough support coming from europe to deal with those issues. we just talked about it. germany as you well know, and britain, have been going in and out in afghanistan. there has been criticism about holding back. you mentioned constraints. is it not the case that we have to not only expect that if we can get it, europe will be helpful and we would like to not necessarily have a large premium and can you expect that? you know europe as well as
. the clerk: s. 164, a bill to prohibit the united states from providing financial assistance to pakistan until dr. shakil alfridi is freed. mrs. shaheen: ski for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, it will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 29, 2013, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for their two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meeting
states from providing financial assistance to pakistan until dr. shakil afridi is freed. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceeding to this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. it will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today women make up nearly half of the american workforce. more women graduate from college today than do men. more women were sworn into the 113th congress than any congress before that. and there are more women in the democratic caucus than ever before, and that's an understatement. millions of women are the primary wage ener wage earners r families. yet for many women, there is not pay equality. women still bring home 7 cents for every dollar their male colleagues earn for doing exactly the same work. i have five children. my oldest child is a girl. it's hard to comprehend that she's worth less than one of my boys, who do the same work. it is unfair. and that's true regardless whether a woman has a college degree, regardless of what job she holds and wharl regardless w many hours she spends at the office. the
to pakistan and some countries that probably none of us know where he went. there are many times he's come to me and said, i've got to go, and he tells me where he's going, thouing in the newspapers about -- nothing in the newspapers about where he'd gone. but he is a great evaluator of people, and because of that, the president trusts him and has sent him on all these missions. now he will do that as secretary of state. he's authored numerous pieces of legislation to prevent the global spread of h.i.v. aids. he also played a central role in crafting our policy in iraq and afghanistan in the war on traimpleterror. i can remember one time where he spent days and days with president karzai working 0en a difficult issue following the elections that they had there. he'he's been focused on the mide east peace process and israel's security forays entire time on the foreign relations committee. for more than 30 years senator kerry has been a powerful voice for his constituents in massachusetts as well as an engaged citizen of the world. throughout those years john has matched his u unflinching pa
their information, pay for the transaction pakistan and the line and get their photo taken. so there were huge security process change that we have to make. the right now when you come into the dmv the first thing to do is you get your photo taken. it's running a facial recognition check while you're getting the rest of your information provided. real-time social security checks, real-time immigration checks, and again capturing that photo is crucial for us. every front-line dmv employee has had a full criminal background check, and annual fraudulent document recognition training. we have state-of-the-art equipment, trained employees, and it's been working very, very well for us. the federal real id act is very, very specific about the security of the actual card stock and equipment used to make the license. so in each one of our facilities we have what we call a secure room, which is a little overkill in my opinion but this bulletproof walls, bulletproof glass, special security requirements to get into those rooms. and all of the equipment, whether it is printer ribbon, everything that you ca
control and verification, building lasting ties with pakistan and perhaps in his most personal contribution, opening up diplomatic relations with vietnam. i'd like to speak to that for a moment if i can because it's a personal story that i'd like to share. it was john kerry and john mccain more than any others who really moved us from that stage in our history where we shunned the people of vietnam to the point where we recognized their country, established normal relations with them and built a new relationship. there were no better senators to do it than john kerry and john mccain, both of whom were decorated veterans of the vietnam war, both of whom gave so much in that conflict, particularly senator mccain, spending five years as a prisoner of war in vietnam. but they worked hard to establish normal relations with that country and to put behind the bitterness and the war that had divided the two countries, the united states and vietnam. it wasn't easy, and one of the issues front and center in this was a question of prisoners of war and missing in action. there were all sor
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46